There are many ways in which groups, both large and small can operate more or less effectively within a set of dynamics. I have been running discussion groups for a number of years and these have their own specific requirements and styles in which they operate best. In general terms you will find that for every ten people within the group there is one prolific contributor, three or four moderate contributors and the remainder occasional contributors or observers. This suggests ideal group sizes of between twenty and thirty people, beyond this control becomes difficult, and this size group also allows for those who are more forceful at putting their ideas across being controlled more effectively to allow those more reticent or hesitant a opportunity to voice opinion. This question of control leads on to a rather thorny issue. That of who controls the group. In an ideal situation the group is self managed internally with each member aware of all of the other members and their particular strengths and weaknesses and almost instinctively making allowances for these.
However, we are all aware that this is not an ideal world, and certainly when the discussion turns to something more heated, the concept of sharing of ideas or even time can be somewhat lacking as each speaker strives to get their point across. There have been a variety of methods tried to maintain some semblance of control within heated discussions, from the implementation of a timing bell, to the passing of a talking stick or similar token, to the appointment of a chairman whose role is to organise and control each speaker and the subsequent interjections. All of these can at times feel unnatural and forced and can limit or impede the flow of discussion and lend an artificiality to the debate. One method that does seem to have let to more engaging and productive discussions is the debate method particularly on more contentious issues such as those where there is a clear delineation between two or more sets of beliefs and argument and counter argument can be established and debated.
This tends to draw the loudest voices to a focus whereby they are limited in their input by time constraints and if they are effectively managed as primary speakers, others have a better opportunity to contribute. It can feel a little schoolroom-ish but this is not necessarily a bad thing in the context of a discussion or debate that is aimed at a less experienced audience who are looking to learn as part of a group process. Of course, part of this process raises another potential area of interest, that of subject matter. There are a vast range of potential topics in most subject areas, but particularly within discussions around Paganism and it can be quite intimidating perhaps to be thrust into a debate without some prior notice of the subject area. Again experience has shown that when there is an effective group size good work can be achieved by having a discussion about the topics to be discussed and formulating a list of discussions and debates and possibly presentations to encourage more regular attendance and perhaps more structured discussion since people are actively encouraged to do a little research for themselves.
Again this can have the negative consequence of feeling a little like homework, but for me this depends on the context of the group. Most people join a group firstly for fellowship in whatever form that is defined and secondly to understand a little more about what they do and what others do. This is the essence of socialisation and is for me at the core of most pagan groups, the opportunity to learn together as a group. Of course the biggest problem facing any sort of discussion group is membership. All of the opportunities to have organised discussions and debates are predicated on there being sufficient regular attendees in order to allow a structure to develop and for each individual within the group to derive benefit from their association with the group. It is something which should be addressed as part of the process of establishing a productive group in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment